But most of you are genuine hypocrites to the very cores of your tiny little shriveled cockroach souls. So you damn Bush and praise Obama for the same stuff. It’s just who you are.

There is this tiny, infinitesimal percent of liberals for whom the following is any real problem. And even that tiny fraction of a percent of you hypocrites are going to vote for Obama anyway. Because you are amoral slime and you frankly disgust me:

Within moments of Anwar al-Awlaki’s death, debate erupted over whether the U.S. had a legal basis to target one of its own citizens with deadly force.

Last year, President Obama put Awlaki on a secret list that gave the intelligence community a green light to target him in a deadly drone attack.

The move bothered human-rights advocates so much that they sued, enlisting Awlaki’s father as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

“The government should not have the unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation,” says Hina Shamsi, who leads the national security project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

But the Justice Department responded that Awlaki wasn’t just any American. He transformed himself from a cleric who inspired young Muslims with words to an operational leader who helped equip terrorist plotters with deadly bombs.

A judge ultimately threw out the ACLU lawsuit, saying it involved state secrets and raised political questions that should be answered in Congress, not the courts.

All those questions came roaring back again today with word of Awlaki’s death at the hands of the U.S. government.

“The requirements of the Constitution with respect to due process for killing an American are not clear,” says John Bellinger, a lawyer in the State Department under President George W. Bush.

After 10 years of talking about legal authority when it comes to terrorism, he says, there’s still no international consensus on the legality of drone strikes — and no clear precedent for using those drones to kill a U.S. citizen.

“Wherever they are in the world, they have a constitutional right to due process,” Bellinger says. “But due process doesn’t necessarily mean an adversarial judicial hearing.”

So, Bellinger says, under his view of the law, a criminal trial or even an indictment doesn’t have to happen to satisfy the Constitution.

Instead, a legal finding by the Justice Department and debate among lawyers from multiple government agencies might have satisfied Awlaki’s rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Ken Anderson, who teaches at American University’s Washington College of Law and follows U.S. policy on drones, says the analysis starts with whether Awlaki amounted to a lawful target — U.S. citizen or not.

“The U.S has always seen somebody who is planning attacks against the United States as a lawful target,” Anderson says.
Either because Awlaki presented an imminent threat to American citizens or because he had become an enemy fighting alongside al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, Anderson says, he could be seen as a lawful target.

Anderson says in the legal analysis, the place where a target is located matters too.

“[The government’s] standard is we’re not going to be targeting somebody in London or Paris or someplace that’s got the effective rule of law,” Anderson says.

But by hiding in Yemen, Awlaki couldn’t be served with a subpoena or easily taken into custody, putting himself in a different category.

The Justice Department wouldn’t talk about specific operations or individuals. Nor did it want to describe the process the government used to put Awlaki on a target list.

One administration official did agree to speak in general about targeting terrorists. “We’re not commenting on any specific individual or operation,” the official said. “As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense.”

Experts say that while it might not be required under the law, it would make good political sense to share more information with Congress and the public. Awlaki’s case might be the first case to present these difficult questions, but it won’t be the last.

I would say that I’m on Obama’s side on this one. These rat bastards declared war on our women and children, and we should hunt them down in every single cockroach hole on the planet and we should kill them. But then there’s the embarrassing little fact that Barack Obama repeatedly demonized George Bush for the very sorts of things that he is now himself routinely doing as president. Which qualifies him as a liar without shame or honor or integrity.

Barack Obama came to power on lofty rhetoric that was an abject lie. And from the moment he came to power he has cynically betrayed everything he said and lied to every single American whether that American voted for him or not.

Obama demonized Bush on Guantanamo Bay. The weak, posturing fool swore that he would shut it down within ONE YEAR of taking office. Now he was either the worst kind of cynical and frankly truly depraved liar – and therefore ought to be driven out of office – or he was so incompetent and so fundamentally ignorant of the job of a president that he ought to be driven out of office. You choose which. Either way, Guantanamo Bay continues to be a shining example of the fact that Barack Obama is an abject disgrace to presidential leadership.

He did the same damn thing on issue after issue: whether it was the Patriot Act, domestic eavesdropping, rendition, you name it, he violated his word and did the exact opposite of what he said he would do.

Just take a look at Democrats. Consider what they said about Iraq and WMD before Bush attacked Iraq:

Then consider how they betrayed their own previous statements to attack a president at war. Like the traitors they are. Then consider how they praised themselves for the same exact war they had been for before they hypocritically turned against it as Vice President Joe Biden said:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

The sheer unadulterated hypocrisy and chutzpah of the entire Democrat Party is mind-boggling.

It’s long past time that liberals fell flat on their face and openly admitted that they were treasonous pieces of garbage for attacking George Bush the way they did.

Allah be praised for American liberals, and for their liberal mainstream media. Without these useful idiots, more of us glorious soldiers of Allah would die, and more infidel American dogs would live.

The American mainstream media is completely useless. Except to terrorists who want to murder as many Americans as possible. Papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post are VERY useful to them.

In his most recent interview with an Al Qaeda media outlet terrorist “Anwar Al Awlaki” the US born Al Qaeda terrorist said that he stopped his communications when he read in the Washington Post that he is being tracked by US intelligence. He said that once he stopped his communications he left the area in Yemen where he was hiding and then this area was bombed by US airstrikes.

He also said that both terrorists “Nidal Hassan” who killed 13 of our troops at Fort Hood and “Omar Farouk Abd Al Moutaleb” who had the failed terrorist attack on the Delta Detroit plane on Christmas Day 2009 were his students and that he is honored and proud that they were his students.

In his interview he called for every muslim serving in the US military to imitate what terrorist “Nidal Hassan” did and kill US soldiers.

He said that he is very proud of his role to incite violence against Americans.

The text of his video interview with “Al Malahem” which the media outlet of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula can be found on this link below which is from “al falojah” terrorist forum. It is in Arabic.

Question from “Malahem” Al Qaeda media: The Americans are saying that after Nidal Hassan attack they tighten the noose around your neck, they closed your website on the internet and now you are being chased, is that true?

Answer from terrorist Al Awlaki: Yes they closed this website after Nidal Hassan attack, I wrote on the website an article approving of what Nidal Hassan did and then after that they closed the website. After that I read an article in the Washington Post that they are monitoring my communications so I was forced to stop these communications and left the area and then after that the American bombardment occurred.

It’s hard to know for certain which Washington Post article Al Awlaki is referring to: liberal media are so quick to alert terrorists and undermine American national security that there are many such articles to pick from. But this Wa Po story is a likely candidate.

Basically, about the only time the mainstream media reports the truth anymore is when they’re trying to tip off terrorists like the good useful idiots they are.

And Barack Hussein Obama, of course, has repeatedly criticized Fox News for not being more like the “useful idiot” media.

I’m sure Al Awlaki would approve this message: “Help spread terrorism, and death by jihad. Support the American mainstream media. We surely do.”

Since present day Humanism vilifies Judeo-Christianity as backward, its goal to assure progress through education necessitates an effort to keep all mention of theism out of the classroom. Here we have the irony of twentieth century Humanism, a belief system recognized by the Supreme Court as a non-theistic religion, foisting upon society the unconstitutional prospect of establishment of a state-sanctioned non-theistic religion which legislates against the expression of a theistic one by arguing separation of church & state. To dwell here in more detail is beyond the scope of this article, but to close, here are some other considerations:

In the earlier spirit of cooperation with the Christian church the ethics or values of the faith were “borrowed” by the humanists. In their secular framework, however, denying the transcendent, they negated the theocentric foundation of those values, (the character of God), while attempting to retain the ethics. So it can be said that the Humanist, then, lives on “borrowed capital”. In describing this stuation, Francis Schaeffer observed that: “…the Humanist has both feet firmly planted in mid-air.” His meaning here is that while the Humanist may have noble ideals, there is no rational foundation for them. An anthropocentric view says that mankind is a “cosmic accident”; he comes from nothing, he goes to nothing, but in between he’s a being of supreme dignity. What the Humanist fails to face is that with no ultimate basis, his ideals, virtues and values are mere preferences, not principles. Judging by this standard of “no ultimate standard”, who is to say whose preferences are to be “dignified”, ultimately?

What happens when “preferences, not principles” encounters a difficulty? The preferences will go out the window every single time. Call it a “preference” for “the ends justify the means.” Who needs moral principles when Obama has political pragmatism? And bye-bye, any professed principles.

“Feet firmly planted in mid-air,” and the abandonment of principles in favor of a constant stream of moral relativism and ends-justifies-the-means thinking has plagued the amoral Obama administration again and again. Obama damned Bush over Gitmo; but he’s doing the same thing. Obama damned Bush over military tribunals. What is he doing now? He damned Bush over the surge strategy in Iraq; what in the world would you call the strategy he’s employing now in Afghanistan? Obama damned Bush over the practice of rendition, but he’s doing it as much as Bush did. Obama denounced Bush for holding terrorist detainees without trial, but he’s doing the same exact thing. The list goes on and on. Obama attacked Bush over his lack of transparency, only to be far less transparent than Bush ever was. Obama criticized Bush for protecting the wealthy at the expense of the poor, but has since engaged in bailout after bailout of the rich and powerful. Obama blasted Bush for being partisan, but he has become the most partisan president in American history. Obama denounced the right for using reconciliation to pass key legislation, and then used it to pass the most significant legislation this country has seen in 60 years. For all Obama’s lefty rhetoric, he has abandoned virtually every principle he professed.

Quite possibly above everything else, Obama pronounced himself the man who would end the war on terror – if nothing else than by the sheer magnificence of his person – and restore all the principles of liberalism’s views toward constitutional protections to the enemies we would confront on the battlefield.

But when the rubber met the road, the amoral president demonstrated that his moral values amounted to dust in the wind, which would blow away in the face of the next challenge.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism.

The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone,with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities deeply uneasy.

To eavesdrop on the terrorism suspect who was added to the target list, the American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is hiding in Yemen, intelligence agencies would have to get a court warrant. But designating him for death, as C.I.A. officials did early this year with the National Security Council’s approval, required no judicial review.

“Congress has protected Awlaki’s cellphone calls,” said Vicki Divoll, a former C.I.A. lawyer who now teaches at the United States Naval Academy. “But it has not provided any protections for his life. That makes no sense.”

Obama and his supporters have routinely depicted Obama (somewhat falsely) as “a constitutional law professor.” But stop and think about it: this “constitutional law professor” now has the view that it’s okay to blow away an American citizen without any form of legitimate trial. He’s dogmatic about protecting the sanctity of the guy’s cellphone calls, but he has no compunction about ordering the guy to be blown to bits without a trial based on secret intelligence.

A pretty remarkable degree of chutzpah from a guy who once demagogued a president over his treatment of foreign terrorists.

Now, one might think that the political left and the liberal mainstream media would be frothing in outrage over all of these abandonments of principle, but the left is as incapable of genuine moral outrage as they are of genuine moral principles. Which is to say that the media damned Bush over every breach of constitutional ethics from a leftist perspective, but they largely never mention all of Obama’s myriad breaches of the very same ethics.

Whenever the left offered its next political Utopia, the mainstream media of the day sanctified the government takeover as wonderful. And then failed to speak out as the next regime, and then the next, and then the next, became a living hell on earth (as an example, here’s an article about the “hidden” history of evil in the Soviet Union. Why is it “hidden”? Because the left has steadfastly refused to look at the ugly face of socialism/communism).

Standing for nothing, with their feet firmly planted in mid-air, Barack Obama and the leftist radicals he champions have no principles to plant their feet upon. The result has been one abandonment of principle after another beyond anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.